This is awesome. Thanks Eddan! I will gratefully read what you've forwarded.

Re: speaking on behalf of groups, I appreciate your caution. I should have been more clear, my effort here is specifically not to speak on behalf of this or that group. Im seeking only to deliver an argument pure and simple about the negatives of the DAC specifically into the hands of people in local govt so they can make use of it themselves, in other words, enable them to articulately represent their own personal interest with regards remediating this issue, and specifically not get caught up in the politics of representation or who all is for or against, which can get sticky to say the least. 

Regarding the juridical sphere, review there is of course entirely germane, but what im hoping to produce is not a legal brief but more like a 3-5page policy position against the DAC in layman's terms: A summary of the project, its glossed-over overreach, and its unanswered questions in ways that are moral-political (youll be collecting far more info on everyday folks than youre inferring, and this is wrong) and legal (this abridges our specific constitutional legal right and/or state/local laws in x ways). 

I had no doubt that discussions were already under way amongst all manner of groups attuned to the precarious state of civil liberties, and so im excited to be able to join in on the conversation and do what i can to contribute. This being but one way. This is not a collaborationalist posture, simply a pragmatic one in my view, and one of many equally-effective approaches we have at our disposal -

looking forward,
david

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014, eddan.com <eddan@sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Additionally, in regards to speaking on behalf of these groups - I would recommend looking into the limitations and reporting requirements for political lobbying for traditional 501(c)(3)s like Sudo Room & BAPS -before proceeding too far, especially with the status pending.


sent from eddan.com

On Jan 22, 2014, at 11:53 AM, David Keenan <dkeenan44@gmail.com> wrote:

eddan,

thank you for this! i will come to sudo tonight. Is the meeting at 6:30, or what is the time?

What is needed are white papers against the dac, that set out clearly the actual scope of the dac and stake out our position against it in point-by-point terms at the level of moral-political logic. Does anything like that exist?

Showing up at public comment at council meetings is fine, but frankly at the same time the attitudes of some at public comment also has had a tendency to just piss off the various people in govt who are also against the dac and mostly ignore the content. These people, various aides and such, who really are on our side, need be able to articulate arguments against the dac in a noncombative manner, that can be framed in a language that isnt polemical or too emotional but simply sensible. 

Im going to start a working group / class out of baps on this also -

best,
david
david

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014, eddan.com <eddan@sudoroom.tv> wrote:
Hi David & Sudo folk -

Just wanted to remind folks that the Oakland Privacy Working Group (meeting tonight at Sudo Room) has been trying to coordinate a robust and effective response to the Oakland DAC funding in this crucial several week window at the City Council. 

It is of course important for everyone who's willing to work to try and stop this to do what they can. It might be helpful though to make sure coordination is taking place so that one part of our collective effort isn't seen as legitimizing a process we are trying to shut down by supporting it through fixing it.


For those interested, there is also a meeting of the League of Women Voters on this topic tonight (http://www.lwvoakland.org/VOTER-January-2014.html). There will also be an event of relevant interest in Berkeley tomorrow night (https://www.eff.org/event/nsa-surveillance-and-our-almost-orwellian-state). 

-Eddan

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 6:55 PM, David Keenan wrote:

Hey guys,

a friend of mine who works for the ci